| Re: |
Are there a couple of "key" verses used to prove the Islamic antichrist? And that he will be from Turkey?
I'm not sure who said this before, maybe Bear, but I agree that with the western world mostly hating militant Muslims I don't see how they would willingly and glowingly follow after him.
The traditional idea of antichrist is that he, by guile and charm, gets all nations to follow him because of the solutions (apparent) he posits to solve the earths problems. He'll probably even figure out how to save the whales.
I can't see a militant Mahdi filling this role.
But, in full disclosure, I don't believe in a literal future one man antichrist either.
But I don't see how the Muslim idea fits with the traditional idea of the antichrist and what he is supposed to do.
| 2016/4/22 15:35||Profile|
| Re: |
I can answer that brother from several of the scriptures, but I'll have to do it later. My family needs me now. I wish I could cut & paste your answers (faster). I'll try tonight.
Lord Bless you,
| 2016/4/22 15:48|
| Re: |
removed it - blessings to all
| 2016/4/22 18:16|
| Re: |
Mark respectfully I have looked at the article. It is nothing new in that it's promoting Roman Catholovism as the religion of the Antichrist. Probably promoting the pope is the Antichrist.
I have issues with the RCC. But ser nothing in Scripture that harolds it as the religion of the Antichrist.
My issues is that the article is accusing many Bible teachers of being false prophets. I will admit that I have some concerns with certain Bible teachers who hold to a pre-trib premillennial view of scripture. BUT BUT BUT when you start calling John MacArthur, Chuck Swindoll, J.Verne McGhee, David Jeremiah, and other teachers false prophets. I question this article.
Respectfully brother. I found the article you posted lacking in presenting its case. But I think it is also in bad taste that the article calls men who have faithfully taught the word of God false prophets. I might add some of the sermons of those men who are being called false prophets are in the archives of Sermonindex.
Brother just my thoughts. But really the article is in bad taste.
| 2016/4/22 18:42|
| Re: |
I have watched the video that Jeff posted. It does set forth a convincing case of Islam being the religion of the Antichrist. I might add it appears to be more consistent with scripture then the article promoting the RCC as the religion of the Antichrist.
The video did not call into question men who have taught other views of end-times eschatology as false prophets.
But if you have the time the video is worth watching. But in the end we nust be watchful and vigilant as the end times to unfold.
Simply my thoughts.
| 2016/4/22 18:48|
| Re: |
I the way I understand is that if the antichrist is from Islam ,he won't appear as one of the radicals, but as one of the peace lovers so to speak , at first,,,then turn once he has deceived,,,and many people won't necaserly be very willing to follow ,but will be forced and manipulated to follow through fearand obligation ,I think many Muslims already follow Islam for that reason ...
And being I believe Catholicisim must also play the major roll as well ,I think the pope will be the false prophert and be able to turn the hearts of the Catholics to join hand in hand with the antichrist,,,,pope John Paul primed way with his ecumenical beliefs and many went along with him ...
Have you seen the Prayer meeting in the Vatican the John Paul set up with all the other faiths ,,,,,
| 2016/4/22 19:10||Profile|
| Re: |
Here is simply a bit of Church history:
"The Jesuits were commissioned by the Pope to develop a new interpretation of Scripture that would counteract the Protestant application of the Bible’s prophecies regarding the Antichrist to the Roman Catholic Church. All the reformers’ studies pointed the finger directly at the Roman Catholic Church as the Antichrist power described in Daniel as the “little horn.”
Source: Wikimedia Commons
Francisco Ribera (1537-1591), a brilliant Jesuit priest and doctor of theology from Spain, answered Papacy’s call. Like Martin Luther, Francisco Ribera also read by candlelight the prophecies about the Antichrist, the little horn, the man of sin, and the beast of Revelation.
He then developed the doctrine of futurism. His explanation was that the prophecies apply only to a single sinister man who will arise up at the end of time. Rome quickly adopted this viewpoint as the Church’s official position on the Antichrist.
If I remember correctly this teaching came eventually into the church via the Scoffield Bible.
The first question is: was everyone else before Francisco Ribera wrong, is his teaching right and therefore we are right today?
| 2016/4/22 21:32|
| Re: |
That's simply a bit of historical revisionment.
Some of the early reformers did believe the Papcy as a whole was "the man" of sin (which doesn't even make since because in the Greek it means an individual man/person. I could see how they would think that actually. The RCC is an "antichrist" system ("even so, many antichrists have already come"), but not the ultimate end times fulfillment of "the man of perdition". For as many so called historians (Wikipedia) who say "a Jesuit came up with the entire idea of futurism", as many scholars & historians reject that and say that Jesuits merely came up with the predecessor ideas to "Dispensationalism/Pre-Trib secret Rapture". Some say the Jesuits came up with the original "Preterism" ideas that it was all past.
This is why I stay with the scriptures in context through consistent interpretive methods as much as possible.
| 2016/4/22 22:41|
| Re: FYI|
A few years ago John MacArthur did a teaching. His position now, unless he has changed, is the Antichrist will be of Islamic descent. Or will be a Muslem.
| 2016/4/22 23:27|
| Re: |
Where in scripture does it state that the antichrist (if there is a future literal one-man antichrist, which is highly debatable) will be a muslim? Islam wasn't even "invented" until the 600s so obviously scripture would not reference it as Islam- but what scriptures are used to support such an idea?
I agree with the person who said that the identity of antichrist alwasy seems to change with the times.
No one was talking about a muslim antichrist 50 years ago. If it was in the scriptures then, why did no one see it? Apparently Joel R. has come to our rescue.
In the 30s/40s it was Hitler or Stalin.
In the 70s it was the head of a revived 10 nation European common market system.
In the 80s it was Ronald Reagan.
Now its some muslim, or Obama.
The popes have always been candidates.
Personally i think it was talking about Nero and only Nero (although the papacy comes in a close 2nd)
But I would like to see how scripture establishes a Muslim antichrist vs. this just being like picking low hanging fruit given the days we are living in.
| 2016/4/23 9:40||Profile|